Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 11034

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Kalyan Rai Surana, J
Atikur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Bail Appln./3213/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T H Hazarika, D Roy, K Islam, A Rashid, M Chetia
For the Respondents: S C Keyal

The provision of an arrest memorandum containing the description of the offence and relevant legal sections constitutes sufficient compliance with Section 50 CrPC and Section 47 BNSS; furthermore, the statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act for commercial quantities precludes bail regardless of detention duration unless the three-fold test is satisfied.

Headnote:(A) Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail - Commercial quantity - Statutory embargo - Requirement of recording satisfaction on twin requirements - Mandatory even in cases of long incarceration.

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 50 - BNSS, 2023 - Section 47 - Arrest memo - Communication of grounds of arrest - Use of word 'or' between 'full particulars of offense' and 'other grounds for such arrest' implies that communication of either is sufficient - Memorandum of arrest containing details of offene and law sections satisfies the provision.

(C) Bail - Parity - Principle of parity not applicable where the previous bail application of co-accused was heard and decided by same Bench but suppressed during subsequent bail proceedings before a different Bench.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotic substances, sought bail on grounds of long incarceration (1056 days), slow trial progression, and parity with a co-accused granted bail by a Coordinate Bench. The petitioner also argued for non-compliance of Section 50 CrPC due to alleged failure to inform grounds of arrest.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the memorandum of arrest providing the description of the offense and statutory provisions satisfies the legal requirement of informing the accused of the grounds of arrest under Section 50 CrPC and BNSS. The court also held that Section 37 NDPS Act creates a specific statutory embargo on bail for commercial quantities, and the court could not satisfy the requirements to grant bail at this stage. It further negated the claim of parity, noting suppression of facts regarding prior bench assignments of bail matters.

Issues: Whether non-furnishing of a separate document termed as 'grounds of arrest' violates Section 50 CrPC? Whether statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act can be relaxed due to long incarceration? Whether parity applies when a co-accused is granted bail by a Coordinate Bench in violation of assigned rostering principles?

Ratio Decidendi: The word 'or' in Section 50 CrPC/Section 47 BNSS indicates that either 'full particulars of the offense' or 'grounds of arrest' is sufficient compliance; the arrest memo served as sufficient notice. Statutory embargo for commercial quantity under Section 37 NDPS Act must be strictly applied regardless of duration of detention.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and bail application summary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding trial delay, parity, and arrest procedure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. interpretation of section 50 crpc/section 47 bnss regarding arrest grounds. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. application of section 37 ndps and principle of parity in bail. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

ORDER

Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the NCB.

2) By this bail application filed under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Atikur Rahman @ Atiqur Rahman @ Atikur Rahaman, who is in custody since his arrest on 19.12.2022 in connection with NCB Crime No. 24/2022 and thus, has remained incarcerated for about 1056 days as on the date of this order, is praying for bail. The said case is being tried before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon as NDPS Case No. 23/2023 under sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(C), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3) As per the disclosure made in this bail application filed on 20.09.2025, this is the sixth bail application by the petitioner. The earlier bail applications were disposed of as follows:-

a. B.A. No. 101/2023 was rejected by order dated 25.01.2023, passed by this Court.

b. B.A. No. 1600/2023 was closed by order dated 16.06.2023, passed by this Court on the submission made by the learned counsel for the NCB that a final complaint had been filed by the NCH before the Court of Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, with liberty to the petitioner to move the learned jurisdictional court for bail.

c. The learned Trial Court had rejected the prayer for bail in NDPS Case No. 23/2023 by order dated 03.08.2023.

d. B.A. No. 3343/2023, was rejected by this Court by order dated 16.02.2024.

e. B.A. No. 1291/2025 was closed on withdrawal by order dated 09.06.2025, passed by this Court.

4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this time, the prayer for bail has been made on three new grounds. Firstly, only 4 (four) witnesses have been examined till today. Therefore, there is no possibility of an early conclusion of trial. Secondly, a Coordinate Bench had granted bail to a co-accused, namely, Monirul Islam, who was arrested on the same day and therefore, he is praying for parity in the matter of grant of bail. Thirdly, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC and therefore, arrest memo cannot be construed as an alternative and/or equivalent to furnishing of “grounds of arrest”.

5) In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases, viz., (i) Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 799, (ii) Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh , (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 1587, (iii) Sarju Chetry & Anr., v. The State of Assam, B.A.3987/2023, decided on 10.04.2025, (iv) Azibur Rahman @ Aziz @ Ajibur v. The State of Assam, B.A. 624/2025, decided on 02.05.2025, (v) Sri Neizosetuo Kire v. The State of Nagaland & Anr., decided on 11.04.2025, (vi) Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 166, (vii) Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing undertrial prisoners v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 731.

6) The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for bail. It has been submitted that this Court, while rejecting the prayer for bail by previous orders, had relied on many case citations. Therefore, apart from those, he has cited the following cases, viz., (a) Jitul Ali v. The Union of India, B.A. 1635/2025, (b) Union of India v. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade, Crl Appeal __(number not provided) of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9792/2025], decided on 07.11.2025, and (c) Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese , 2025 Legal Eagle (SC) 1176.

7) The order dated 16.02.2024, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 3343/2023 contains the discussion and reasons why the Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 11034

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATIKalyan Rai Surana, JAtikur Rahman – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentBail Appln./3213/2025

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Kalyan Rai Surana, J
Atikur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Bail Appln./3213/2025